On Thursday, October 20, the Los Angeles Sparks and the Minnesota Lynx of the WNBA (Women’s National Basketball Association) will play the final game of their 2016 national championship series. If you were not aware of that event, one reason would be the obvious rampant sexism in the American sports world which denigrates female athletes. Another culprit, however, might be the NBA (National Basketball Association). The NBA created the WNBA in a manner that minimized the public impact of women’s professional basketball.
Twenty years ago, after years of discussions and fits and starts another women’s professional basketball league was begun, the American Basketball League (ABL). This seemed a good time to start a women’s professional league, building upon the positive notoriety of the 1996 U.S. women’s Olympic team, which won the gold medal in a popular dominating fashion. With eight of the 12 stars from that 1996 Olympic team, The eight-team league was formed with teams spread across mostly second-tier league cities like Columbus, Ohio; Hartford, Connecticut; and San José, California. It also included teams in Atlanta and Portland.
The same year, 1996, the NBA announced another women’s league, the WNBA, also an eight-team league, which would start play in the summer of 1997. Several of these teams were affiliates of the NBA teams in the respective cities, automatically starting with some organizational and financial clout.
The WNBA had the other four stars of the Olympic team; however, these were some of the biggest stars–Cheryl Swoopes, Lisa Leslie, Rebecca Lobo, and the veteran Ruthie Bolton. These teams and stars were publicized as if all the players from the Olympic team had gone to the WNBA. Moreover, in a calculated move, the league’s season was set to play in the summer, when the NBA teams would not be playing, thus not having the share the fan base.
By using its clout, the NBA secured television contracts for the WNBA and at least crowded out the ABL from ever getting a television contract. Without a contract the ABL folded after two seasons, thus clearing the field for the winter time fans. However, before it did, it played two seasons–in the fall and winter–and considered itself the superior league as it had the greater share of the top players. Each year it challenged the WNBA to a playoff of their individual champions each year, similar to the old AFL v. NFL football game which came to be known as the Super Bowl.
With such a shortened season, the WNBA places limits on individual player’s salaries, now at $107,000 per year, and that amount is for the top stars. Thus many of the star players of the WNBA play in Europe during the regular basketball season with multi-million contracts. This means playing year round–summer in the U.S. and fall, winter, and spring in Europe. Playing year round, of course, is taxing, so one European team paid its American star player, Diana Taurasi, enough money to let her to sit out the 2015 summer season with her WNBA team.
I think it is likely that if the WNBA played during the regular basketball season, it would have more attention and more fans. Moreover, here’s a wild thought. Perhaps with this rearrangement the players would make more money in the U. S. On the other hand, would this development complicate things for the NBA? Would more fans and money for the WNBA mean less for the NBA?