The debate over WNBA salaries has recently escalated into a heated and contentious issue, sparking outrage, backlash, and impassioned social media posts. It began with a tweet from Alyssa Leer, a public defender, who expressed her shock at the relatively low salaries of WNBA players, particularly when compared to their NBA counterparts. Leer, alongside many others, voiced frustration that top draft picks in the WNBA only make around $70,000–$76,000 per year, a stark contrast to the $10 million or more earned by NBA rookies. The tweet quickly went viral, capturing the attention of media outlets and fans alike, all fueling the growing conversation about gender pay disparity in professional sports.

But what started as an outcry for “fair pay” has evolved into a much more complex and controversial issue. Matt Walsh, a well-known sports commentator, weighed in with a scathing critique, calling WNBA players “ungrateful” for demanding salaries on par with NBA players. His comment tapped into a deeper concern: the financial sustainability of the league itself. Walsh pointed out that the WNBA, despite existing for nearly three decades, has never turned a profit. In fact, the league generates only $60 million in revenue annually, a minuscule fraction of the $10 billion the NBA generates. Even with a generous estimate of $100 million in revenue for the WNBA, the NBA still makes more than 100 times that amount.

This discrepancy in revenue raises an uncomfortable question: How can players demand NBA-level salaries when their league is hemorrhaging money year after year? According to Walsh, the answer is clear: they shouldn’t. In fact, he argued that WNBA players are vastly overpaid, considering the financial realities of the league. Despite the league’s lack of profitability, the NBA subsidizes the WNBA every year, essentially keeping it afloat through a financial lifeline that ensures its continued operation. Without this assistance, Walsh contended, the WNBA would likely be out of business.

As Walsh provocatively put it, the question isn’t about fair pay; it’s about asking for a fair share of a product that generates zero profit. And here lies the crux of the issue. While it’s easy to sympathize with the idea of fair pay for women athletes, especially those at the top of their game, the financial landscape of the WNBA presents a tough paradox. The league simply isn’t profitable enough to support the salaries players are demanding.

The financial challenges of the WNBA are compounded by another hard truth: low viewership. Last year, the WNBA recorded its most-watched regular season in two decades, which may sound impressive at first, but the actual viewership numbers are staggering in their lack of appeal. The average viewership per game was 500,000, which, for a professional sports league airing on network television, is seen as a catastrophic failure. To put that in perspective, CNN’s weekly show featuring Charles Barkley and Gail King was recently canceled after just six months due to similarly low viewership numbers. In essence, the WNBA is drawing smaller audiences than some cable TV shows, which raises the uncomfortable question of sustainability.

The disconnect between the online chatter advocating for higher pay and the reality of actual viewership is striking. On social media, the WNBA has plenty of vocal supporters, but when it comes to watching the games or attending in person, these same supporters often fail to materialize. Many of the people pushing for higher salaries have never watched a WNBA game, never bought tickets, and never engaged with the product in any meaningful way. The ironic twist here is that fans of the WNBA, particularly those on social media, are demanding pay raises for players without demonstrating any tangible support for the league.

The WNBA’s financial challenges and lackluster viewership are inextricably linked. The league’s survival depends on the continued subsidies from the NBA, but with declining interest and engagement from fans, its future is increasingly uncertain. The solution to the WNBA’s financial woes is clear: it needs to boost its viewership, increase fan engagement, and find innovative ways to generate revenue. Yet, with such low numbers, it will take a drastic overhaul for the WNBA to become profitable.

Adding fuel to the fire, President Joe Biden recently waded into the debate over WNBA salaries, asserting that women in sports are not paid fairly, despite their impressive achievements. He called for equal pay and equal opportunities for women, arguing that the current pay disparities between male and female athletes need to be addressed. His comments, however, seem to miss the core issue: the WNBA is not generating enough money to justify the high salaries being demanded. As Walsh pointed out, how can a league that isn’t profitable pay its players a “fair share” when there’s no pie to slice?

Enter Caitlin Clark, the 2024 WNBA draft’s most talked-about rookie. Clark, a star from the University of Iowa, has garnered unprecedented attention, with her draft being the most-watched in WNBA history. Her name alone has brought a wave of new fans to the league, who are tuning in to see where she would land and what she could accomplish in the pros. Despite the excitement around Clark, however, the financial situation for the WNBA remains unchanged. The league is still struggling to turn a profit, and the enthusiasm generated by Clark hasn’t yet translated into sustainable financial success.

In fact, some WNBA players seem resistant to the influx of new fans brought in by Clark’s rising stardom. Several players have criticized her supporters, with accusations of racism being thrown at her fans. This hostility toward new fans is concerning because these fans are the ones who could help drive the WNBA’s revenue growth. If the league alienates this new audience, it risks losing the very people who could save it from financial ruin. In essence, the WNBA has a golden opportunity to grow its brand, but some players seem intent on undermining that growth.

If the WNBA is to have any hope of thriving, it needs to embrace change. Experts agree that an overhaul is needed: expanding the season, improving marketing strategies, optimizing social media engagement, and most importantly, fostering a loyal and supportive fan base. None of these efforts will succeed, however, if the league continues to alienate its fans, especially the new ones. Caitlin Clark represents a unique opportunity for the WNBA to tap into a new demographic, and yet, the league risks squandering it by pushing those very fans away.

The clock is ticking for the WNBA. With Caitlin Clark’s star power, the league has the chance to level up and increase both its viewership and revenue. But this requires a shift in mindset, a willingness to change the way the league operates, and the recognition that the WNBA must be more than just a charity case. It’s about creating a viable and exciting product that can stand on its own. If the WNBA doesn’t adapt, it will continue to flounder, caught in a cycle of low viewership and financial instability. Ultimately, it’s not about the Twitter debates or the social media posts—it’s about whether or not fans are willing to show up and support the players on the court. The WNBA’s future depends on it.