Rising WNBA Stars Illuminate Inequities And Spark New Calls For Change

Even before they make their WNBA debut, Catilin Clark, Kamilla Cardoso, Cameron Brink, and Angel Reese are reshaping the landscape of women’s professional sports. Amid historic jersey and ticket sales, the immense popularity of this draft class is spotlighting the disparities endured by women athletes. As fandom for women’s basketball surges, a growing number of supporters are becoming aware of the stark inequities in salaries and facilities faced by professional women athletes.

Caitlin Clark, chosen as the top pick in the 2024 draft, is slated to earn a total of $338,056 over her initial four-year contract. Only three WNAB teams possess exclusive practice facilities, eliminating the need to share space with other professional teams or rent facilities from external organizations. Consequently, numerous WNBA players endure long commutes between their home arenas and practice venues, often having to adjust schedules to accommodate other teams and events. The Seattle Storm opened their purpose-built practice facility earlier this month, the first for a WNBA franchise in the history of the league.

WNBA Salary Structure

Awareness of the current WNBA player salary structure has shifted significantly over the previous weeks, with increased calls for greater equity and higher overall pay. While WNBA players and longtime WNBA fans have previously called attention to the low salary and revenue share structure, newer fans are quickly learning how inequitable the breakdown is. While NBA players receive a 50% share of the revenue brought in by the league, WNBA players only receive roughly 10% of total revenue, and this percentage technically hinges on the league achieving a minimum annual revenue threshold.

While some point to the success of the NBA as rationale for higher player salaries and revenue shares, men professional athletes have historically faired much better with their contracts and bargaining power, regardless of league success. According to Dr. David Berri, professor of economics at Southern Utah University, “the WNBA has $200 million in revenue today. Adjusted for inflation, per team revenue in the WNBA today appears to exceed where the NBA was at back in the early 1970s when the NBA was the same age as the WNBA is today. The WNBA appears to be on the same path as the NBA.”

Sustained Inequities

The inequities faced by the current WNBA draft class are a microcosm of the larger structural inequities faced by women and girls across sporting spaces. Prior to the passage of Title IX in 1972, a U.S. Federal Policy that prohibits discrimination on the basis of gender in extracurricular activities within federally funded institutions, women and girls had extremely limited access to sport. Following the passage of this policy, resistance to developing programs for women and girls sustained for the next two decades. Importantly, even the NCAA showed great resistance to women’s sports and did not begin hosting women teams and championships until the 1982-1983 season. Prior to 1982, women’s collegiate sport saw the greatest support and success under the AIAW, with nearly 900 institutional members at its peak.

Jemele Hill, award winning sports journalist and women’s sport advocate, noted “it’s funny how people can notice structural inequality in other things, but not when it comes to women in sports, or at least not as readily do people understand the whole reason that women even have access to play at the level that they do in college is because it was federally forced, meaning it was not available. So anytime you have something that had to be federally forced to get people to [offer the opportunity], there’s going to be built in structural inequality.”

The recent outcries from fans are significant, and lasting change will not happen without persistent demands for reform. However, it is essential to acknowledge the longstanding history of inequities endured by women and girls in sports. As stated by Hill, “[the growth of new women’s basketball fans] proves there’s a product that’s viable, but there is also a percentage of those new fans that are coming in with very loud, and wrong, and frankly, silly and stupid opinions. Because they don’t have the context. They don’t have the history. They don’t understand. And, you know, I think this latest iteration where suddenly Caitlin Clark’s four year salary with the WNBA gets posted and people realize she’s making $76,000 for this season, it’s like guys, you know how many times we’ve had this conversation? We’ve had it a lot, particularly during the last [WNBA] collective bargaining negotiations. The players that are currently in the league have been very outspoken.”

The journey towards equitable experiences and viable careers for elite women athletes in professional sports is far from over. In reality, athletes have a very limited amount of time within which they can earn an income off of their playing abilities and they must make the most of their short careers. Although recent changes to regulations surrounding name, image, and likeness have allowed high school and college women athletes to monetize their abilities, professional opportunities still fall short in providing sustainable paths to any kind of longer term financial stability.

Many professional women athletes are forced to compete overseas during their off-seasons, and even with that additional income, these athletes still fall far short of the earning power of their men counterparts. According to Berri, “at no time in NBA history — even in the 1950s when the NBA was a ridiculously tiny operation with no fans, about one-fifth the size of the WNBA today — did the NBA treat the men this badly. This is entirely a choice by the NBA/WNBA. They have the money to pay their players. They had the money to keep Brittney Griner out of Russia. They had the money to avoid the embarrassing Caitlin Clark stories. And they simply are choosing not to spend it.”

In the wake of the 2024 WNBA draft, a seismic shift is underway in women’s professional sports and the recent revelations regarding WNBA salaries and the league’s revenue share structure underscore a systemic issue that extends far beyond basketball. As we reflect on the history of women’s sports, from the struggles preceding Title IX to the ongoing challenges in achieving parity, it becomes evident that structural inequalities have deep roots. Jemele Hill’s poignant observations remind us that ignorance of this history perpetuates misguided opinions and hampers progress. The time for change is now, and it will require not only continued advocacy but also a fundamental shift in the way women athletes are valued and supported in the sports industry.