Why you can't always get what you want

They have lost loads of cash every year since the inception of the league. Their one hope of ever making a profit lies in the person they brutally assault each time she takes the floor. Time for the NBA to allow them stand on their own.... merits?

That is all completely true, but I don't think it's entirely the players' fault. One thing I've noticed is that the WNBA has not made a long-term deal with any broadcast TV stations. You have one game on ABC one week, and then another game on the CW another week. Would a sitcom or any other TV program be successful if it keeps bouncing around from one station to another in the course of a single year?

Here's another thing to think about. The WNBA players make around $100,000 a year whereas NBA players usually make millions of dollars a year. I think paying someone more than a million dollars a year just for following orders is excessive, regardless of whether you are male or female. Now if you're a CEO or in a high-ranking leadership role, than a salary of over a million dollars makes more sense. The President Of The United States makes about $400,000 a year, for example.

Firefighters do not get paid very much, and a lot of them have to take second jobs as a result. But you don't see them wearing shirts like this, mainly because they probably know the cities they work for can't afford to pay them more, even if they wanted to.

I have nothing against women's sports. I like watching Caitlin Clark. But how many people are united with me in enjoying watching Caitlin Clark? Probably not as many people who enjoy watching one or more NBA players in action. So I understand why the WNBA wants a bigger profile, but I fear that they want something they will never be able to attain.

The NBA, in my opinion, is becoming, for lack of a better term, boring to watch. The three point shooting along with soft fouls is making it less enjoyable for many. The WNBA, in the opinion of many, has never been as exciting as the NBA due in large part to the lack of dunks. Men prefer the excitement of the dunks and most have never, or very rarely watched a WNBA matchup. The reason they are getting deals now is due, in large part, to the excitement Miss Clark has brought to the league. Few channels, including ESPN, have been interested in taking on the expense of covering the league knowing it will be done at a net loss since the viewership is not there. They were started with the idea that women would watch or failing that that maybe men would watch it. It never really materialized. Miss Clark brought an interest in viewing based simply on her skills on display prior to her joining. That interest brought eyes to the league that would have lifted all the players into the spotlight. Sadly, the spotlight is showing the world that the players, in my opinion,
don't wish to be elevated by her.

So all the women have to do is dunk and they'll be on the same level as the men? There has to be more to it than that.

There is indeed much more to it than that. It does starts with skill levels. There have been many talented women that have played it, both now and in the history of the league and prior to it's inception. Then must come viewership which must also be a large part of the league's success. I recall an intended "celebration" of the champion of the league. Team members were placed in/on a vehicle to wave to their fans as they were driven down a major city boulevard. There were no fans that came out to watch the "parade". Relatively few have ever watched it. In the 1970's and before the NBA championships were not being aired on TV. Reruns of more popular shows were being shown instead. Gunsmoke was one that comes to memory. If a company, station cannot sell enough ads to make a profit, it won't be aired.
Now that eyes are being drawn to the WNBA, do we see fine play and great skills? Sure. But what people are talking about appears to be basketball meets WWE. Then they add biased referees that can't even call blatant double dribbles much less flagrant fouls. If Miss Clark decides to start a new league, which I believe she must if
she wishes to continue to play in this country, the WNBA will go the way of the ABA from the last century.

Why don't the other women in the WNBA want to be elevated by Caitlin Clark? That makes zero sense.

Agreed. It doesn't.
Before Caitlin Clark: they traveled a lot by commercial airlines.
After: they have been traveling by private jet.
2023 avg. attendance - 6615
2024 avg. attendance - 9807
For some teams, they had been playing in venues as small as 4,200 seats.
Games vs. the Fever this year are being played in NBA arenas.
Clearly, Miss Clark is bringing both eyes and revenue to a league drowning in debt. "A rising tide raises all boats." Just her being in the league can lift the 'brands' of all the players, if they allow it. Charles Barkley called them 'petty'. Many others have called upon the other players, administration, and refs to 'let her cook!'
Jealousy? Pettiness? Bigotry? Worse? The violence is not just perpetrated against Caitlin, but injuring her, maybe permanently, is high on the list of many in the league. When winning by injuring other players becomes acceptable, it diminishes competition and the competitors. It happens in every sport, every league - male and female. In established leagues, profitable leagues, that league can survive the outrage... for a while. In non profitable leagues when there are so many other options to watch? If the WNBA doesn't make some big changes soon, they will never be popular or relevant. Certainly not profitable.

Well guess what even if I am in 'debt' I still aint paying you cause aint nobody got time for that