In 1969, the National Basketball Association was a relatively young professional basketball league fighting to establish itself. It was generating buzz. But the league was facing economic problems, and it was unclear how successful it would be monetizing the game’s appeal to young people.
At the time, Lew Alcindor, a three-time national champion at the University of California, Los Angeles, was entering the professional ranks as a rising star, having dominated the college game and captivated the public’s interest. Desperate for credibility (and fighting off a rival league also seeking to establish itself), the N.B.A. and the Milwaukee Bucks rose to the moment and offered Alcindor a multiyear $1.4 million contract. It was a staggering sum, especially for a market like Milwaukee. Before playing a single game, Alcindor, who would go on to change his name to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, was among the highest paid players in the league.
Today, the Women’s National Basketball Association, established about 50 years after the N.B.A., finds itself at a similar crossroads. As it tips off its 28th season, the W.N.B.A. is as popular as it has ever been. The league’s attendance and television ratings have grown significantly, and its future is bright as it expands to new markets.
This year the W.N.B.A. is welcoming a generational talent to its stable of stars: Caitlin Clark, who was chosen by the Indiana Fever after selling out arenas around the country in her final collegiate season. Yet, for reasons that astound me, as both an N.B.A. historian and a professor who teaches labor relations, the W.N.B.A. has decided that Clark will be paid a salary of $76,535 in her first year. The rate reflects the maximum salary for a rookie under the league’s collective bargaining agreement. That decision is both a choice and a missed opportunity.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
The league’s decision has earned it bad press and allegations of gender pay discrimination, tempering the excitement around Clark and her signature three-point shot, and the league’s ascendance more broadly. Bumping up her salary — even now, after the season has started — would unquestionably be in the league’s interest.
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
Handing out eye-catching salaries to star players has been a longtime tactic by rising sports leagues seeking to establish themselves and their players. And it usually works. The American League, the American Basketball Association, the American Football League, major-league Soccer and more recently LIV Golf have all planted their flags by paying — and in some cases overpaying — for top talent.
These deals don’t just help new leagues compete with existing ones or entice existing players to shift allegiances. They also serve as a strong message to the public about the quality and investment of the league.
Even the W.N.B.A. has taken this tack in the past. When it negotiated its most recent collective bargaining agreement in 2020, the league touted the large increases to player salaries as proof of its arrival. Now the W.N.B.A. has the opportunity to fully elevate the league to its rightful stature. Major-league salaries imply a major league product.
The main argument presented for Clark’s salary are the express terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the W.N.B.A. and its players, which lays out the base pay rate for players like her. But these terms can, and in her case should, be ignored through agreement of the parties. In labor relations, parties regularly negotiate exceptions or otherwise allow changes to their agreements. For example, the W.N.B.A. recently agreed to provide charter travel to its players in excess of its contractual obligations.
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Leagues have been more than happy to sidestep salary restrictions and pay new players more when it suits their interests. For instance, in 2019 it was reported that Major League Baseball was willing to work around some of its restrictive salary and contractual rules for incoming players to entice University of Oklahoma quarterback Kyler Murray to pick professional baseball over football.
The salary caps and rookie scales that pervade professional sports are not handed down from God, nor are they objective assessments of player values. Should the W.N.B.A. decide to double, triple or quadruple Clark’s (or any other player’s, of whom there are many deserving ones) salary, the only theoretical party who would have standing to dispute that increase would be the union who represents W.N.B.A. players — which would have no clear reason to object. The league and the union could even agree to make this a one-off agreement, without establishing a contractual precedent.
Some people have argued that Clark’s official salary is of little consequence given that she is all but certain to earn millions through league incentive and marketing agreements and personal endorsement deals. But focusing on Clark’s endorsement potential misses the opportunity to have a national conversation about how the league ought to be paying its players.
For the W.N.B.A., allowing Clark to be paid more, in addition to being the right thing to do, would be a sound investment in a league deserving of greater public attention. There is a reasonable concern that other deserving players would be miffed to see a rookie receive special benefits, but the union would almost certainly be happy for at least one of its players to make more money than their artificial minimum.
Alcindor’s signing was part of a transformational change in pay for N.B.A. players. With W.N.B.A.’s collective bargaining negotiations on the horizon, such an increase for Clark or others could help all players in negotiations.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
But even if this were only about Caitlin Clark: She is already the biggest star in the W.N.B.A., and she should have the salary to match it.
At the time, Lew Alcindor, a three-time national champion at the University of California, Los Angeles, was entering the professional ranks as a rising star, having dominated the college game and captivated the public’s interest. Desperate for credibility (and fighting off a rival league also seeking to establish itself), the N.B.A. and the Milwaukee Bucks rose to the moment and offered Alcindor a multiyear $1.4 million contract. It was a staggering sum, especially for a market like Milwaukee. Before playing a single game, Alcindor, who would go on to change his name to Kareem Abdul-Jabbar, was among the highest paid players in the league.
Today, the Women’s National Basketball Association, established about 50 years after the N.B.A., finds itself at a similar crossroads. As it tips off its 28th season, the W.N.B.A. is as popular as it has ever been. The league’s attendance and television ratings have grown significantly, and its future is bright as it expands to new markets.
This year the W.N.B.A. is welcoming a generational talent to its stable of stars: Caitlin Clark, who was chosen by the Indiana Fever after selling out arenas around the country in her final collegiate season. Yet, for reasons that astound me, as both an N.B.A. historian and a professor who teaches labor relations, the W.N.B.A. has decided that Clark will be paid a salary of $76,535 in her first year. The rate reflects the maximum salary for a rookie under the league’s collective bargaining agreement. That decision is both a choice and a missed opportunity.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
The league’s decision has earned it bad press and allegations of gender pay discrimination, tempering the excitement around Clark and her signature three-point shot, and the league’s ascendance more broadly. Bumping up her salary — even now, after the season has started — would unquestionably be in the league’s interest.
Sign up for the Opinion Today newsletter Get expert analysis of the news and a guide to the big ideas shaping the world every weekday morning. Get it sent to your inbox.
Handing out eye-catching salaries to star players has been a longtime tactic by rising sports leagues seeking to establish themselves and their players. And it usually works. The American League, the American Basketball Association, the American Football League, major-league Soccer and more recently LIV Golf have all planted their flags by paying — and in some cases overpaying — for top talent.
These deals don’t just help new leagues compete with existing ones or entice existing players to shift allegiances. They also serve as a strong message to the public about the quality and investment of the league.
Even the W.N.B.A. has taken this tack in the past. When it negotiated its most recent collective bargaining agreement in 2020, the league touted the large increases to player salaries as proof of its arrival. Now the W.N.B.A. has the opportunity to fully elevate the league to its rightful stature. Major-league salaries imply a major league product.
The main argument presented for Clark’s salary are the express terms of the collective bargaining agreement between the W.N.B.A. and its players, which lays out the base pay rate for players like her. But these terms can, and in her case should, be ignored through agreement of the parties. In labor relations, parties regularly negotiate exceptions or otherwise allow changes to their agreements. For example, the W.N.B.A. recently agreed to provide charter travel to its players in excess of its contractual obligations.
Editors’ Picks
Exit the Modest Merchant Prince
Why TikTok Users Are Blocking Celebrities
First Aid Basics Everyone Should Know
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
Leagues have been more than happy to sidestep salary restrictions and pay new players more when it suits their interests. For instance, in 2019 it was reported that Major League Baseball was willing to work around some of its restrictive salary and contractual rules for incoming players to entice University of Oklahoma quarterback Kyler Murray to pick professional baseball over football.
The salary caps and rookie scales that pervade professional sports are not handed down from God, nor are they objective assessments of player values. Should the W.N.B.A. decide to double, triple or quadruple Clark’s (or any other player’s, of whom there are many deserving ones) salary, the only theoretical party who would have standing to dispute that increase would be the union who represents W.N.B.A. players — which would have no clear reason to object. The league and the union could even agree to make this a one-off agreement, without establishing a contractual precedent.
Some people have argued that Clark’s official salary is of little consequence given that she is all but certain to earn millions through league incentive and marketing agreements and personal endorsement deals. But focusing on Clark’s endorsement potential misses the opportunity to have a national conversation about how the league ought to be paying its players.
For the W.N.B.A., allowing Clark to be paid more, in addition to being the right thing to do, would be a sound investment in a league deserving of greater public attention. There is a reasonable concern that other deserving players would be miffed to see a rookie receive special benefits, but the union would almost certainly be happy for at least one of its players to make more money than their artificial minimum.
Alcindor’s signing was part of a transformational change in pay for N.B.A. players. With W.N.B.A.’s collective bargaining negotiations on the horizon, such an increase for Clark or others could help all players in negotiations.
Advertisement
SKIP ADVERTISEMENT
But even if this were only about Caitlin Clark: She is already the biggest star in the W.N.B.A., and she should have the salary to match it.
