Stewart, JJones, and Meesseman have signed with Turkish teams, while Vandersloot will play in Hungary. This season Turkey played far into the WNBA season (don't recall how long Hungary went). If this is the case next year it could well mean these players won't be back next season (depending on their contracts, but I can't see teams paying for the regular season w/o requiring they stay for the playoffs.) I suppose the WNBA could start the season a lot later and then go later in the fall but going too late might constrained by international tournaments.
Players probably think the WNBA will just cave if they threaten to skip the season. Given the long history of individual teams caving to players demands (e.g. demanding one-sided trades out of town, etc) I can see why they would think that, but the WNBA is the one imposing the suspensions so who knows. As we hear so often nowadays "we are in uncharted territory."
Excluding the older players who tend to not go overseas, the league may face a solid top 20 players from not being able to play in 2023.
That would be pretty ugly esp. when you think that there are always players getting injured and some even miss the whole season. This might level the playing field as the best teams have the most to lose. Losing the 4th or 5th best player on Atlanta, or Indiana is not as big of a problem as losing the 4th or 5th best players on the Aces.....
If top WNBA players who regularly play overseas think it'll be tough playing in the W in 2023, just wait 'til 2024 when the Prioritization Clause gets that much tougher.
If the WNBA cares about keeping its best talent at home, it'll opt out of the CBA in 2025, allow itself to pay the top players in the seven-figures (may as well take advantage of still being tied to the NBA by leeching off of it even more), and finally make a push to expand the schedule to a 'regular' length.
However, the WNBA may not be willing to do that, in which the League should be – and by then, may be – prepared to lose a significant portion of its top talent. There is always a high supply of lesser players though – especially those right out of college. If the League thinks losing its top talent won't necessarily lead to a worrisome drop in attendance and viewership (are people fans because of the talent or for other different reasons?), the League will let its top talent go and potentially turn its attention to marketing & actually developing the fringe talent that'll make up the bulk of its talent pool – truly trying to let in as much college talent as possible and effectively tie itself to WCBB. The WNBA certainly won't be the most talented women's basketball league in the world anymore by then, but the League may not care about wearing that title either if it still leads to a sustainable product.
At this point, I hope the League grows tired of half-assing both of these approaches and just gets to a point where it picks one.
Could be that 2023 will look a lot like 2020 when so many of the players didn't play for all or part of the season: EDD, JJones, Griner, Fowles, Hayes, and many others. As it turned out, new stars emerged from the shadows: Laney, B Jones, Hines-Allen and Dangermouse. 2023 will also be missing players like Bird, Fowles, January, and maybe Parker, Quigley and others who retire. Of course, some player who are unofficially retired like Dupree, Bentley, NoGlory, etc could make a comeback. Will the fans notice the drop in talent? IDK. TBH - I'm not sure the "stars" of the WNBA are big enough that having them in the games draws that many fans, esp. on road games. Exceptions might be Taurasi and Bird on their home courts. Shoni was one of the few players that drew a lot of fans to arenas, but we all know how that story turned out.
TBH - I'm not sure the "stars" of the WNBA are big enough that having them in the games draws that many fans, esp. on road games.
I would agree. Imo fans will show up based on either #SupportWomen or if their team is good. Not to mention: The Wilson's, Diggins-Smith's, and Delle Donne's who don't play overseas anyway will still be there (well, if EDD is healthy, in her case).
I would love for the League to get to a point where it doesn't actually need a Prioritization Clause, but for now, I'm glad it's gonna create an inflection point for the League (and perhaps the WNBPA in a re-neg of the CBA) to have to decide on what direction it'll go in. Will it create drama? Most definitely, but it can't be helped. The current CBA is definitely getting opted out of in 2025 by one of the sides (likely the WNBPA's).
How did the players just look over this prioritization clause? Guaranteed they opt out of this CBA in 2025. A new potential TV deal, expansion, expanded rosters, a possible season expansion, charter flights, etc. Lots to work out.
I doubt it got overlooked. It was probably a concession the WNBPA had to make in order for the League to concede something valuable in return. The players might’ve had a “cross that bridge when we come to it” type of mindset when conceding it.
And perhaps the WNBPA knew that upon the Clause’s arrival, they could try to make a social media campaign along with the players to denounce it in order to deter the League from doing it again in future CBA negotiations.
I thought it was stated that the reasoning that the Clause got out into the CBA was because the owners felt that they players needed to give something back to them with the increase in salary.
formerly pickdiamondmillerchallenge lol formerly dmillerturnprochallenge ha formerly bostonturnprochallenge lol
I thought it was stated that the reasoning that the Clause got out into the CBA was because the owners felt that they players needed to give something back to them with the increase in salary.
Oh, well, if that’s the case, then there ya go. Makes sense.
Again, I just want the League to pick a path. Pay the superstars competitively with respect to how they’re paid overseas, or keep salaries “low” across the board and shift the focus to developing the talent coming out of college. Otherwise, the League will continue to be stuck in the No-Man’s Land it’s been in.
I suspect some of the players just thought it was a bluff (and probably many still do). Some of the players probably voted against it, but the vote of the 12th player on the bench counts the same as a superstar like Brianna Stewart and the added pay probably carried the day for a lot of players who are either struggling to get overseas jobs, or not getting the big paychecks when they do. The players that don't play overseas also probably voted for it. Looking at the WNBAPA Executive Committee* it looks like only Liz Williams (and maybe Achonwa?) have been playing overseas since the 2020 season. Notably absent are any of the players complaining about the prioritization clause.
*WNBAPA Exec. Committee Nneka Ogwumike, President Layshia Clarendon, First Vice President Elizabeth Williams, Secretary Carolyn Swords, Treasurer (2018-2020) Natalie Achonwa, Treasurer (2020-present) Chiney Ogwumike, Vice President Elena Delle Donne, Vice President Sue Bird, Vice President
BTW - according to a very recent NY Times article, Turkey is also a country that has played the "Hostage Diplomacy" game in recent years and their leader is pretty much a dictator. Hopefully the players (JJones, Meessman and Stewart) signing with Turkish teams have been made aware of this. Since Stewart if the only one with a US passport, she would probably be the only one at risk. In the case of Gala there is also a long history of not paying players until they win an appeal with FIBA.
So, 40 games next season officially, just as the Priority Clause starts to creep in. I disapprove of this. I've viewed 30 games as a true "summer-league" season and 50 games as more of a standard season, so 40 in between that seems like Engelbert's trying to have it both ways. And I don't have receipts, but nevertheless, I'm starting to feel like she tries to "have it both ways" in general, which bothers me.
I didn't know the CBA gave them the option to play up to 44 games. I wonder if this was another detail the players overlooked when agreeing to it. They'll stretch the season out over four months (mid-May through mid-Sept). Comes to ten games/month. Then for 2024, it sounds like they'll retract back to 36 games.
Richyyy is pretty adamant that expanding the schedule next season is a really dumb idea. He'd prefer to expand the playoffs, or making the Commissioner's Cup a real tournament. I kind of like the idea of a 3 day tournament in one host city though I'd rather expand the season than the playoffs anyway.
Interesting article and he makes some good arguments.
So given all this why do the owners want to have more games?
In theory teams should make a profit on a per game basis. 5000 tickets averaging $50 average spend for parking, seats, concessions and merchandise produces $250,000 in revenue. Even the Dream with 3000 seats @$40 would be $120k revenue for an arena that costs them much less than most WNBA arenas. The real question is how many of those tickets are sold vs. given away, and whether adding games adds much to the season total attendance. For a lot of people going to a game is something they do once or twice a year and adding games won't change that.
One other thought - most college teams are playing over 30 games a season. It seems like pro league should play more games than a college team. So there may be some sort image thing they are working on.
I think looking forward, the league should do the Commissioner's Cup prior to the regular season as a mini-tournament. Playoffs only get slightly expanded with the semifinals going to a best-of-5. Something to think about for the 2025 season which hopefully has two expansion teams by then.