Following an admittedly popular (at least by prior results) women’s Final Four tournament, the Women’s National Basketball Association held its amateur draft this week. There was heightened interest in this year’s selection process (again, a subjective measurement), as star Caitlin Clark was the expected first overall pick. As Clark has displayed nothing but class in her career, the activist set in the media had to make news about her fortunes – or, more specifically, her lack of a fortune.

There has been no shortage of headlines and social media upheaval about the massive pay disparity between what the men are paid in the NBA and the salaries of the ladies in the WNBA. As Mike Miller covered, this is a result of selective economic ignorance, because the NBA delivers massive fortunes for the owners, and the players are paid accordingly. The gals, meanwhile, bring in far less as far as revenues go, and even less than that in terms of profit.

Here is where the narratives of a “Fair Wage” go off the rails: The women’s league has never turned a profit, so if “fairness” was accurately applied the female players would be charged for the chance to suit up. Their league survives only because the NBA subsidizes the WNBA. Many have said it is unfair that Steph Curry gets paid more for one game than the annual salary of the top females, but they need to ignore that his jersey sales alone probably account for a greater sum than the WNBA revenues.

Apart from the basic economics, I want to instead focus on the critics of this reality found in the press. The news divisions of some of the major networks have been extending this insipid narrative, namely CBS News and NBC News.

College basketball superstar Caitlin Clark's WNBA contract will see her pocket $338,056 over the course of four years.

In contrast, last year's No. 1 NBA draft secured a $55 million four-year contract. https://t.co/koimAwb3SH

— NBC News (@NBCNews) April 17, 2024

College basketball sensation Caitlin Clark will earn less than six figures in her rookie season with the Indiana Fever, reigniting debate over whether professional women athletes in the U.S. are fairly paid. https://t.co/2rervnFIBY

— CBS News (@CBSNews) April 17, 2024

So why don’t we look into the matter from the perspective of these two outlets? The NBA currently has a split broadcast agreement between ESPN and the TNT Network. That deal, running through the end of next year’s 2024-25 season, was priced in at $24 billion. The league is currently angling for a new deal, seeking it to land in the $75 billion range. The ladies recently signed a deal with the ION Network, meaning it will broadcast roughly 40 games alongside ESPN which also holds post-season rights. Combined this brings the league a paltry, by comparison, $40 million. 

Now, this leads us to the primary question for the harridans over at NBC and CBS. If you truly believe that the WNBA players deserve to be paid significantly more money, approaching if not commensurate with NBA salaries, why are we not seeing broadcast rights involving either, or both, of your networks being paid out to at least a level of a few hundred million dollars?! Since these outlets want to have a debate over the fairness of salaries, why are we not seeing them paying out a significantly higher - that is to say, a “Fair” - broadcast fee?

The answer to that question is patently obvious. There is no sound financial reason to drop that kind of check to broadcast WNBA games on NBC or CBS. These journalists either know this or if they don't, they certainly should. What it comes down to is that this is childish leftist peacocking; they yelp that the WNBA deserves to be paid more – they just need to be paid by somebody else.