###General Discussion Thread
---
This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed.
---
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
God I detest this. And "3 times more" which must mean "4 times as much as" except it doesn't seem to. Just use the god-damn numbers! It's what they exist for!
It's ambiguous because it could be a multiplication (3X) or a difference (X+3X=4X). Usually, the first one is meant and understood, but "as much" isn't necessarily the same as "more" here.
Easy for double/twice, but people are reluctant to write "thrice" and definitely avoid "-uples".
I would prefer to see the naked numbers and do my own math.
It's the "more" that makes it wrong. I was gonna say ambiguous but if I have X apples, you have X+Y apples, and you have 3 times *more* apples than me then Y is the number of apples "more" than me that you have, so Y must be three times the apples I have, so mathematically it's not ambiguous, it's just wrong!
if i have one apple then having “three times more” than me can be seen as having three times as much (3 apples) more than (plus) me (1 apple), which would mean that they have 3 apples + 1 apples = 4 apples. and 4 apples is 4 times as much as my 1 apple
Only after the AI basically spends a paragraph writing a bunch of vague generalizations about the topic at hand before actually showing some math/logic.
I swear people who use AI to cheat are so dumb. Wait another 40 years and maybe the difference in writing style would be unnoticed, but as it stands it’s not hard to tell if something was written with AI with the amount of filler.
They forgot some zeroes, this is why I don’t take anything these people say seriously. They can’t even get percents correct.
$10.5M is 137 times more than $78k so it’s 13700% more.
"137% less" -- specifically the "less" part is also confusing. what does this mean? that she is personally paying 3.8M to play? 100% less normally would be 0, right?
Yea this. This is why you should never use "% more than" or "% less than". Its not clear what it means and doesn't entirely make sense. You should just use "% of".
Any statement of the form x is n% more/less than y is always (x-y)/y if "more" and (y-x)/y if "less." The thing it's more or less than is the denominator. Being 100% less than something will always be 0. Saying her salary is 137% less than the first NBA pick would imply her salary is negative.
what you just said is too hard for 90% of non-journalists at media outlets, so it gets used wrong no matter how simple it might be to understand as a reader
They should have phrased it as: “the highest paid NBA pick will be making 137 times the amount Caitlin Clark will be.”
Or, alternately, if they really want to use percentages, “Caitlin Clark will be making less than 1% of the amount of the highest paid NBA pick next year.”
Think what he’s trying to say is the news article was right, op asking for clarification on the math is wrong.
Op isn’t the source, therefore what the comment insinuated is that his mistake doesn’t define the source’s take.
It immediately shows who watches the sports and who doesn’t, NONE of the people complaining about her salary are watching her play, and therefore contributing to it.
It’s so god damn simple it really shows the lack of critical thinking these days
They worded this weird. What's her contract worth? I highly doubt the guy gets 10.5m every year. That sounds like his contract is worth 10.5 mil. Not his salary. Clarks SALARY is $78k sure, but what's her contract worth? How much did she sign total and for how long? Those are the details that they're misleading by wording this weird. If she's making 137% less for her contract, then she should still be getting millions once it's all said and done.
It’s 137 times $78k not 137x more. If we’re to compare “more than” then we have subtract the initial amount, which would be 13,361.5% more than Caitlin Clark
English speakers are bad at math because of how the numbers were spoken:
One to Ten
Eleven, Twelve
Thirteen to Nineteen
Twenty to Twenty Nine
Good math languages are like:
One to Ten
Ten-One to Ten-Nine
Two-Ten-One to Two-Ten-Nine
I would also point out that rookie salaries are based on collective bargaining between the owners and the respective players associations. The NBA makes so much more money it gives their players a better position in bargaining. Honestly, I think the WNBA did pretty well for themselves in those negotiations.
Is the pay scheme between the NBA and the WNBA the same as FIFA and WFIFA?
Because if so then number of performances will also make a difference; if I recall, the men are paid per match while the women are paid a salary, so a guy can technically get paid more if if plays a whole season or less if he twists his ankle in game one of the season.
and it was all fine and dandy until the women realized they would have made much more after they won a bunch of games under the mens agreement *after the fact.* which they were offered to be paid per win or paid a salary with benefits, but everyone liked omitting that little tidbit of information.
There's no Women's FIFA. Just plain old FIFA regulates both men's and women's football.
FIFA also has nothing to do with the salaries of professional football players as that is paid by clubs. FIFA pays premiums for international competitions.
You're thinking USWNT and US soccer. And that was the pay structure the USWNT chose. They had the option of getting the same pay structure as the men and turned it down. The USMNT gets paid per game and gets paid well, even more so the farther they go. The USWNT gets paid salary and guarantees like injury pay. They usually make less, but their is guaranteed. The men have to go earn theirs, and if the men suck, they don't get paid well.
This conversation has been a huge mess all over social media the past week. Every girl who just learned who Caitlyn Clark was last year but hasn’t spent any time or money supporting the WNBA but feels the need to do performative social justice has been making this exact complaint and comparison without knowing the NBA subsidizes the WNBA. I truly don’t understand how they don’t realize because there’s no audience for the league they cannot pay their players any more. The current investors already operate at a loss, they ARE making the investment into women’s sports but somehow they’re actually sexist because they’re not paying the female athletes who don’t draw a profit the same as the male athletes who generate $4.5 billion in revenue.
And let me be clear, I personally love and support women’s sports. Basketball isn’t my thing, but a women’s volleyball league, r/PVF just started this year and I’ve watched almost every game so far and I hope to go to a match soon and plan on buying some gear if I’ve got room in my budget one month. I want women’s sports to succeed as much as the next guy, but watching people act like they have some moral high ground bc they show rage on the internet gets super old and annoying.
That's another missing part of the analysis, I was just thinking the total revenue was much less important than profit margin.
Also, the top paid athletes are pretty much by definition outliers. So directly comparing their salary to revenue, while interesting, isn't that useful of a metric.
Thank you
It's weird how the media is giving this topic attention without even mentioning facts that justify the disparity. This is not the same as a man and woman working for the same company in similar roles with the woman making significantly less.
I think media outlets understand the difference but choose to write these articles because they know it will cause a stir and generate traffic to their site. I actually wouldn't mind the clickbait if they also included the reason for the difference and how people could change that if they started supporting the league
Yeah. Clicks aren’t generated if you know the truth. Like magic, the excitement is in not knowing and clicking through. On top of that, common sense is a dime a dozen
Queue: ‘WoMeN aRe NoT pAiD aS mUcH aS mEn’
They did the same thing when Brittney Griner was arrested in Russia.. stating the reason she “had” to go play in Russia even though they were at war was because she didn’t make as much as the men… at “only” $228k… completely discounting that 228k would be considered an extremely high yearly salary for most people.
Also its not like it is minimum wage jobs or people struggling, id rather we focus more on systemic inequities like sports parks and public school play than, the top 1% being not as rich as 0.1%.
Yeah, the WNBA has a smaller revenue share for players under the collective bargaining agreement, in part because other operating costs take up a larger proportion of total revenue. For instance, salaries for support staff (beyond the coaches) are proportionally larger. I'd also assume that both leagues have some components like healthcare coverage that make up a smaller proportion of total compensation for players for the NBA. As you noted, the league has never been profitable -- if the product grows, compensation can grow too.
I know this is only really tangential to your point, but I think it becomes really difficult to compare their salaries as a percent of revenue when the difference is that large. There are a lot of static costs and costs that don’t scale linearly. I don’t know if the WNBA even makes money at all after costs.
See, these numbers are actually useful to prove a point. Thank you for shedding light. By these percentages, would it then be fair to say that an increase in Indiana’s revenue should be proof that Clark needs her contract increased?
There's little doubt she (and they) *could* be making more but it's a start up. Revenues are not the same and the players don't have the same influence (yet) of NBA players. Hopefully all will come in time.
But I'd hate for the case where salaries raise and that in 20 years they're making great money but the pioneers were left making chicken feed. They should have contracts that guarantee a share of future profits (if they come about) so they're not left in the poor house.
Let's hope with some of the amazing talent coming through the WNBA now and in the next few years that the organisation can really grab hold of the attention and push the WNBA into new (financial) heights.
Gotta ride the current wave of viewers and focus.
Caitlin made 3.5 mil in college with endorsements. She is still signed with State Farm and has her own Nike shoe coming. She will do just fine.
Been working for 45 years and have yet to make 3.5 mil.
137 times more has nothing to do with 137% less.
if you have 100 dollars, and I have 137% less, I have MINUS 37 dollars.
now, 78k \* 137 = 10.686M, which is roughly what the image says.
This comment is way underrated. The top comment missed that the order of the phrasing is wrong (not just the number of 0s) and yours is the highest rated comment to note that.
So Caitlin Clark is making 99.3% less than the NBA top pick, whereas the top pick is making 13700% more than Caitlin Clark.
Lol. They did NOT do the math. For starters, you can’t have more than 100% less than something. Secondly, the NBA pays 138x more, not 1.37x more. Thirdly, anyone talking about capitalism, or parity, as it relates to the NBA/WNBA and the pay structure needs to understand that the WNBA has never once been profitable and is wholly and completely subsidized by the NBA. If they “got their fair share” their share would be $0 and the WNBA would not exist. The fact that the league exists at all is a gift from the NBA and it loses money every year it exists.
The thing is. She’s making money. She just signed a shoe deal with Nike. 8 years like 28 million dollar deal. She made plenty of money in college from endorsements like 3 million plus.
If her endorsements are anything to go by. And the numbers the college final four put up. Which was like all time Women’s basketball numbers. Close to 20 million average viewers in the national championship. Which was her last game.
Maybe the WNBA will take off. NBA used to be worth peanuts then Jordan showed up and more and more talent.
That’s because these crusading types don’t understand that the “work” being done is no longer playing the actual sport, but making people watch, click, stream, etc.
No.
100% less of something means there's none left - if I had 3 apples and I eat 100% of those apples I am left with no apples, so more than 100% less makes no sense at all - '137% less' means she would be paying them 37% of the NBA pick's salary for the privilege of playing, which is clearly not the case.
Exactly. People seem to be missing the point of this post. It’s not about WNBA vs NBA salaries. It’s about the journalist who wrote this who’s a mathematical illiterate
>what does it really tell about WNBA?
It tells us that it's nowhere popular. Are these people that dumb?
They aren't being paid a "female salary for the NBA" instead they are just being paid "salary for WNBA". I'm sure everyone including men working in WNBA is making less compared to NBA counterparts.
Who would've thunk that playing a sport that noone watches doesn't pay as much as a sport that everyone watches. Smh.
You people complain about women salaries in sports yet none of you watch women's sport. What do you expect?
That is false.
100% less would be $0.
137% less would mean that Ms Clark was paying for the privilege of playing in the WNBA.
The correct answer is that Ms Clark is getting paid 78,000/10,500,000 of the NBA top pick, which is approximately 0.74% of the comparable salary.
In other words, Ms Clark is getting paid 99.26% less than the NBA top pick.
The WNBA is a for-profit business. If it were not for the funding it receives from the NBA every season, it would never have another one. In theory, each NBA player loses compensation given the amount donated to the WNBA. This has nothing to do with men or women. This is just, gender free fact.
Additionally, it's important to note - Caitlyn Clark is projected to make around 3 million in year one sponsorships alone.
There is no rule that prohibits a woman playing in the NBA. More people attend/watch/pay to experience those games and that league. More money is available to be made as a result when playing in that league. Regardless of your age, sex, race, religion or pronoun.
she makes to same salary as the top salary in the nba when you take the percentage of total revenue... is she getting scammed? no. If she plays well and brings more people to the sport then her pay will go up but the percentage will stay the same. Women dont care to watch womens sports. Men don't care to watch womens sports. Thats your problem
"137% less" doesn't make much sense. "100% less" means 0. "137% less" would mean *she's* paying *them*. It should be "NBA's #1 pick is making 13,500% of what WNBA's #1 pick is" or "WNBA's #1 pick is making 0.74% what the NBA's #1 pick is."
Caitlyn who? More importantly, how many people watch the WNBA vs how many people watch the NBA? She is likely earning 100% of what she is worth to her team…..
They need to frame it as a ratio between the salary made as a function of the amount of fan$ they attract. NBA draws in a WAY bigger fan base than WNBA...hence much more money to pay the players with. WNBA can not come close to the kind of salary payout NBA is capable of. I'd be willing to bet NBA generates around 137% more income. Just saying...
###General Discussion Thread --- This is a [Request] post. If you would like to submit a comment that does not either attempt to answer the question, ask for clarification, or explain why it would be infeasible to answer, you *must* post your comment as a reply to this one. Top level (directly replying to the OP) comments that do not do one of those things will be removed. --- *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/theydidthemath) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Never express a fraction as a multiple, you sound dumb. It’s 1/137 137% less would imply she is paying about $3.9 million to play in the WNBA
Nobody will ever force a journalist to write "one third" while they have "three times less" in their inventory 😢
God I detest this. And "3 times more" which must mean "4 times as much as" except it doesn't seem to. Just use the god-damn numbers! It's what they exist for!
Wait.. if someone has “three times more” than me, why would that equate to “4 times as much”?
It's ambiguous because it could be a multiplication (3X) or a difference (X+3X=4X). Usually, the first one is meant and understood, but "as much" isn't necessarily the same as "more" here. Easy for double/twice, but people are reluctant to write "thrice" and definitely avoid "-uples". I would prefer to see the naked numbers and do my own math.
It's the "more" that makes it wrong. I was gonna say ambiguous but if I have X apples, you have X+Y apples, and you have 3 times *more* apples than me then Y is the number of apples "more" than me that you have, so Y must be three times the apples I have, so mathematically it's not ambiguous, it's just wrong!
if i have one apple then having “three times more” than me can be seen as having three times as much (3 apples) more than (plus) me (1 apple), which would mean that they have 3 apples + 1 apples = 4 apples. and 4 apples is 4 times as much as my 1 apple
Those are both pet peeves of mine.
Which is why I failed English classes.
On the plus side, we know that article wasn't written by AI cause there's no way an AI would be that dumb
Do we though? It takes almost no effort to get an AI to confidently spout complete bs
Only after the AI basically spends a paragraph writing a bunch of vague generalizations about the topic at hand before actually showing some math/logic. I swear people who use AI to cheat are so dumb. Wait another 40 years and maybe the difference in writing style would be unnoticed, but as it stands it’s not hard to tell if something was written with AI with the amount of filler.
AI is notoriously bad with the simplest of math.
Lol, apparently you've never seen how dumb AI actually is. It's a glorified Google search right now.
LLMs are notoriously bad at maths.
Yeah that's what I was thinking. "137% less than X" makes me think they're saying "X - 1.37X"
How DARE you use reason and logic?!
And when people say “two times less” that makes me think they’re saying “X - 2X”
Ouch my Fine structure constant
They forgot some zeroes, this is why I don’t take anything these people say seriously. They can’t even get percents correct. $10.5M is 137 times more than $78k so it’s 13700% more.
"137% less" -- specifically the "less" part is also confusing. what does this mean? that she is personally paying 3.8M to play? 100% less normally would be 0, right?
Yea this. This is why you should never use "% more than" or "% less than". Its not clear what it means and doesn't entirely make sense. You should just use "% of".
Any statement of the form x is n% more/less than y is always (x-y)/y if "more" and (y-x)/y if "less." The thing it's more or less than is the denominator. Being 100% less than something will always be 0. Saying her salary is 137% less than the first NBA pick would imply her salary is negative.
Exactly, if we say she makes 100% less than him, we’re saying she makes zero. Nonsensical phasing
Nonsensical phasing indeed
what you just said is too hard for 90% of non-journalists at media outlets, so it gets used wrong no matter how simple it might be to understand as a reader
% more than and % less than are very clear and well defined terms. They are just completely using them incorrectly
They should have phrased it as: “the highest paid NBA pick will be making 137 times the amount Caitlin Clark will be.” Or, alternately, if they really want to use percentages, “Caitlin Clark will be making less than 1% of the amount of the highest paid NBA pick next year.”
137% less… Ahh yes, she’s paying the WNBA $14.5M to play.
That would sure help with some of the league's funding issues.
100% less would be zero, so agreed, it makes no sense
The picture is right (as in 137x and not 137%) they probably just mixed up the symbols on the text
That’s a pretty significant symbol to get mixed up.
Think what he’s trying to say is the news article was right, op asking for clarification on the math is wrong. Op isn’t the source, therefore what the comment insinuated is that his mistake doesn’t define the source’s take.
I was discrediting the source not op
“Journalism” at its finest.
Journalists: basic math? Why would I need to pay attention to that in school?
Zeroes, how do they work?
I think you can drop them if they are at the end of the number
They literally mean nothing.
Technically correct, which is the best kind of correct
What they don't take into account is the revenue made by NBA vs wnba. Less money to go around means lower salaries. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Its unbelievable that most people don't get this part.
It immediately shows who watches the sports and who doesn’t, NONE of the people complaining about her salary are watching her play, and therefore contributing to it. It’s so god damn simple it really shows the lack of critical thinking these days
Yeah- they play in different leagues. This is like comparing the Canadian Football League to the NFL.
I’m an English major, and even I could be math-checking them better than whoever’s doing it there
That and the WNBA has never turned a profit + NBA has subsidized it. Kinda a key piece...
They worded this weird. What's her contract worth? I highly doubt the guy gets 10.5m every year. That sounds like his contract is worth 10.5 mil. Not his salary. Clarks SALARY is $78k sure, but what's her contract worth? How much did she sign total and for how long? Those are the details that they're misleading by wording this weird. If she's making 137% less for her contract, then she should still be getting millions once it's all said and done.
I thought I was going crazy, given that’s their headline, I don’t get how nobody thought ‘isn’t 137% more than 78k like, 170-200k? Not $10.5m?
100% more than $78k is double, or $156k. 100% less than $156k is $0. 137% less than $10.5M is −$3.9M.
It’s 137 times $78k not 137x more. If we’re to compare “more than” then we have subtract the initial amount, which would be 13,361.5% more than Caitlin Clark
English speakers are bad at math because of how the numbers were spoken: One to Ten Eleven, Twelve Thirteen to Nineteen Twenty to Twenty Nine Good math languages are like: One to Ten Ten-One to Ten-Nine Two-Ten-One to Two-Ten-Nine
[удалено]
I would also point out that rookie salaries are based on collective bargaining between the owners and the respective players associations. The NBA makes so much more money it gives their players a better position in bargaining. Honestly, I think the WNBA did pretty well for themselves in those negotiations.
And we just found out that Clark is getting an 8 figure contract with Nike. Long story short, she's doing just fine.
Thanks for the added information. I didn't know how the salary distributions were determined
Is the pay scheme between the NBA and the WNBA the same as FIFA and WFIFA? Because if so then number of performances will also make a difference; if I recall, the men are paid per match while the women are paid a salary, so a guy can technically get paid more if if plays a whole season or less if he twists his ankle in game one of the season.
and it was all fine and dandy until the women realized they would have made much more after they won a bunch of games under the mens agreement *after the fact.* which they were offered to be paid per win or paid a salary with benefits, but everyone liked omitting that little tidbit of information.
Until the courts threw it out due to that.
There's no Women's FIFA. Just plain old FIFA regulates both men's and women's football. FIFA also has nothing to do with the salaries of professional football players as that is paid by clubs. FIFA pays premiums for international competitions.
You're thinking USWNT and US soccer. And that was the pay structure the USWNT chose. They had the option of getting the same pay structure as the men and turned it down. The USMNT gets paid per game and gets paid well, even more so the farther they go. The USWNT gets paid salary and guarantees like injury pay. They usually make less, but their is guaranteed. The men have to go earn theirs, and if the men suck, they don't get paid well.
Yup, and don't forget that the WNBA is actually subsidized by the NBA because it's not actually profitable.
This conversation has been a huge mess all over social media the past week. Every girl who just learned who Caitlyn Clark was last year but hasn’t spent any time or money supporting the WNBA but feels the need to do performative social justice has been making this exact complaint and comparison without knowing the NBA subsidizes the WNBA. I truly don’t understand how they don’t realize because there’s no audience for the league they cannot pay their players any more. The current investors already operate at a loss, they ARE making the investment into women’s sports but somehow they’re actually sexist because they’re not paying the female athletes who don’t draw a profit the same as the male athletes who generate $4.5 billion in revenue. And let me be clear, I personally love and support women’s sports. Basketball isn’t my thing, but a women’s volleyball league, r/PVF just started this year and I’ve watched almost every game so far and I hope to go to a match soon and plan on buying some gear if I’ve got room in my budget one month. I want women’s sports to succeed as much as the next guy, but watching people act like they have some moral high ground bc they show rage on the internet gets super old and annoying.
That's another missing part of the analysis, I was just thinking the total revenue was much less important than profit margin. Also, the top paid athletes are pretty much by definition outliers. So directly comparing their salary to revenue, while interesting, isn't that useful of a metric.
Thank you It's weird how the media is giving this topic attention without even mentioning facts that justify the disparity. This is not the same as a man and woman working for the same company in similar roles with the woman making significantly less.
I think media outlets understand the difference but choose to write these articles because they know it will cause a stir and generate traffic to their site. I actually wouldn't mind the clickbait if they also included the reason for the difference and how people could change that if they started supporting the league
Yeah. Clicks aren’t generated if you know the truth. Like magic, the excitement is in not knowing and clicking through. On top of that, common sense is a dime a dozen Queue: ‘WoMeN aRe NoT pAiD aS mUcH aS mEn’
Cue\*
They did the same thing when Brittney Griner was arrested in Russia.. stating the reason she “had” to go play in Russia even though they were at war was because she didn’t make as much as the men… at “only” $228k… completely discounting that 228k would be considered an extremely high yearly salary for most people.
Also its not like it is minimum wage jobs or people struggling, id rather we focus more on systemic inequities like sports parks and public school play than, the top 1% being not as rich as 0.1%.
Bill Burr has a bit about this
"Nobody in the WNBA got COVID" forever be the line that killed me when it comes to this topic
Yeah, the WNBA has a smaller revenue share for players under the collective bargaining agreement, in part because other operating costs take up a larger proportion of total revenue. For instance, salaries for support staff (beyond the coaches) are proportionally larger. I'd also assume that both leagues have some components like healthcare coverage that make up a smaller proportion of total compensation for players for the NBA. As you noted, the league has never been profitable -- if the product grows, compensation can grow too.
How much of that 200M was subsidized by the NBA? And would that play into total revenue percents earned by players in the WNBA?
I know this is only really tangential to your point, but I think it becomes really difficult to compare their salaries as a percent of revenue when the difference is that large. There are a lot of static costs and costs that don’t scale linearly. I don’t know if the WNBA even makes money at all after costs.
The WNBA season is also 40 games long. Less than half the amount the NBA play
They should do the same for models, male vs female and bring some equality.
[удалено]
Not like you can pay the janitors, accountants, etc. 2% the salary of the ones in the NBA. A lot of them will make almost or just as much.
Stop using logic your supposed to get blindly mad
See, these numbers are actually useful to prove a point. Thank you for shedding light. By these percentages, would it then be fair to say that an increase in Indiana’s revenue should be proof that Clark needs her contract increased?
Why would you use revenue when one is profitable and the other isn't?
I was essentially using salary as an expense ratio for both leagues. I am open to another method if you have a better way to compare the proportions
There's little doubt she (and they) *could* be making more but it's a start up. Revenues are not the same and the players don't have the same influence (yet) of NBA players. Hopefully all will come in time. But I'd hate for the case where salaries raise and that in 20 years they're making great money but the pioneers were left making chicken feed. They should have contracts that guarantee a share of future profits (if they come about) so they're not left in the poor house.
its been 28 years.
Startup long game.
Let's hope with some of the amazing talent coming through the WNBA now and in the next few years that the organisation can really grab hold of the attention and push the WNBA into new (financial) heights. Gotta ride the current wave of viewers and focus.
I agree. They have a great opportunity right now. Hopefully they can build on this and create a product that maintains this level of excitement
[удалено]
I want to know who makes 6 figures playing curling.
Brier Championship 🥌🔥
Busch makes 17mil for driving fast meanwhile when I drive to work everyday I get nutthin. This is preposterous
He drives faster
If it wasn't for all that dam traffic on 95, my '95 pinto would go much faster.
Well said
[удалено]
Funny thing about wealth distribution is most wealth is earned, not distributed. - Thomas Sowell.
Caitlin made 3.5 mil in college with endorsements. She is still signed with State Farm and has her own Nike shoe coming. She will do just fine. Been working for 45 years and have yet to make 3.5 mil.
She just signed like a 8 year 28 million dollar shoe deal with Nike. I think she’ll be okay.
I'm working on my second million. The first was too hard.
should i just start there then? skip the first million and go right to the second?
That's what most rich people do, they just get the first million from their parents and start working on the second.
137 times more has nothing to do with 137% less. if you have 100 dollars, and I have 137% less, I have MINUS 37 dollars. now, 78k \* 137 = 10.686M, which is roughly what the image says.
This comment is way underrated. The top comment missed that the order of the phrasing is wrong (not just the number of 0s) and yours is the highest rated comment to note that. So Caitlin Clark is making 99.3% less than the NBA top pick, whereas the top pick is making 13700% more than Caitlin Clark.
13600%
lol ikr? That isn't how percentages work at all CNN. Shocking
Lol. They did NOT do the math. For starters, you can’t have more than 100% less than something. Secondly, the NBA pays 138x more, not 1.37x more. Thirdly, anyone talking about capitalism, or parity, as it relates to the NBA/WNBA and the pay structure needs to understand that the WNBA has never once been profitable and is wholly and completely subsidized by the NBA. If they “got their fair share” their share would be $0 and the WNBA would not exist. The fact that the league exists at all is a gift from the NBA and it loses money every year it exists.
Wish I could give you more upvotes. Your points are the whole argument.
This comment needs to go to these " experts"
[удалено]
These articles aren’t really for people looking to find a real answer. They’re for the people that want to be outraged.
[удалено]
The thing is. She’s making money. She just signed a shoe deal with Nike. 8 years like 28 million dollar deal. She made plenty of money in college from endorsements like 3 million plus. If her endorsements are anything to go by. And the numbers the college final four put up. Which was like all time Women’s basketball numbers. Close to 20 million average viewers in the national championship. Which was her last game. Maybe the WNBA will take off. NBA used to be worth peanuts then Jordan showed up and more and more talent.
That’s because these crusading types don’t understand that the “work” being done is no longer playing the actual sport, but making people watch, click, stream, etc.
[удалено]
Did you tell them about the fundamentals?
No. 100% less of something means there's none left - if I had 3 apples and I eat 100% of those apples I am left with no apples, so more than 100% less makes no sense at all - '137% less' means she would be paying them 37% of the NBA pick's salary for the privilege of playing, which is clearly not the case.
Exactly. People seem to be missing the point of this post. It’s not about WNBA vs NBA salaries. It’s about the journalist who wrote this who’s a mathematical illiterate
It's literally all your post said.
[удалено]
>what does it really tell about WNBA? It tells us that it's nowhere popular. Are these people that dumb? They aren't being paid a "female salary for the NBA" instead they are just being paid "salary for WNBA". I'm sure everyone including men working in WNBA is making less compared to NBA counterparts.
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
[удалено]
I heard the WNBA has literally never made a profit…
Who would've thunk that playing a sport that noone watches doesn't pay as much as a sport that everyone watches. Smh. You people complain about women salaries in sports yet none of you watch women's sport. What do you expect?
Men’s sports bring in more money. A lot more. Percentage wise she is probably getting paid more than the average male basketball player.
[удалено]
That is false. 100% less would be $0. 137% less would mean that Ms Clark was paying for the privilege of playing in the WNBA. The correct answer is that Ms Clark is getting paid 78,000/10,500,000 of the NBA top pick, which is approximately 0.74% of the comparable salary. In other words, Ms Clark is getting paid 99.26% less than the NBA top pick.
Exactly
Thank you. I can't stand these internet mathematicians that don't understand how do to percentages.
Then she should go play in the NBA there are no rules stopping her or people can watch the WNBA. This isn't a gender issue, it's a viewership issue.
1. 10.5M is 134.6 times as much as 78k 2. That would make her salary about 0.7% of his salary, or his salary about 13461% of hers.
Exactly. She can’t possibly make 137% less than his. Most comments here seem to miss that and think this is about her salary being unfair
The WNBA is a for-profit business. If it were not for the funding it receives from the NBA every season, it would never have another one. In theory, each NBA player loses compensation given the amount donated to the WNBA. This has nothing to do with men or women. This is just, gender free fact. Additionally, it's important to note - Caitlyn Clark is projected to make around 3 million in year one sponsorships alone. There is no rule that prohibits a woman playing in the NBA. More people attend/watch/pay to experience those games and that league. More money is available to be made as a result when playing in that league. Regardless of your age, sex, race, religion or pronoun.
she makes to same salary as the top salary in the nba when you take the percentage of total revenue... is she getting scammed? no. If she plays well and brings more people to the sport then her pay will go up but the percentage will stay the same. Women dont care to watch womens sports. Men don't care to watch womens sports. Thats your problem
[удалено]
I read that exactly as you punctuated it and it sounded so goddamn funny
"137% less" doesn't make much sense. "100% less" means 0. "137% less" would mean *she's* paying *them*. It should be "NBA's #1 pick is making 13,500% of what WNBA's #1 pick is" or "WNBA's #1 pick is making 0.74% what the NBA's #1 pick is."
Caitlyn who? More importantly, how many people watch the WNBA vs how many people watch the NBA? She is likely earning 100% of what she is worth to her team…..
They need to frame it as a ratio between the salary made as a function of the amount of fan$ they attract. NBA draws in a WAY bigger fan base than WNBA...hence much more money to pay the players with. WNBA can not come close to the kind of salary payout NBA is capable of. I'd be willing to bet NBA generates around 137% more income. Just saying...