WNBA Viability (Broken off from Queta thread)
- Thread starter Tetsujin
- Start date
I don't follow the WNBA but I'm perplexed at the franchises that have dissolved vs. the ones that have stuck. Sac and Portland both seem like great markets but both "failed".
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
That’s not true in the case of the Monarchs. The SAC market didn’t fail, the Magoof brothers took a huge financial hit and couldn’t afford the franchise anymore.
Big difference there.
Their business failures don’t reflect the SAC market’s ability to support the franchise.
Section 101
All-Star
If they were making money it wouldn't have been shutdown.
There's a reason I put "fail" in quotes. Games seemed reasonably well attended and I am pretty sure the NBA was subsidizing the team in Sacramento so I am not sure why they wouldn't want put more effort to seeing it succeed/sustain in NBA markets. Or why it hasn't brought teams back to both Sacramento and Portland where in the present day both are almost guaranteed to be near the tops of attendance for the league.
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
I didn’t claim it was making money. Correct me if I’m wrong but the KINGS aren’t making money either. And several NBA franchises consistently lose money as well.
It’s been pretty well known that most owners aren’t relying upon their franchise to make them more money. Until the time comes that they sell. As a day-to-day and year-to-year business it isn’t a winner. With few and notable exceptions.
So claiming the Monarchs wouldn’t have shutdown otherwise is false.
They were shut down because the Magoofs weren’t wealthy enough to take the necessary hit to continue to own a luxury toy.
Furthermore, according to numerous sources, the WNBA loses money as a league. Yet they are in the midst of their 25th season this season. Because the NBA can withstand the financial hit and write it off.
So, again, the Monarchs didn’t fold because the SAC market was a failure. The owners weren’t rich enough to support it as numerous other WNBA owners are able to do despite also losing money.
Iced Espresso
Starter
I don't know all the details but I remember people complaining in the past about the way franchises report earning. If I recall correctly it came up around the last CBA or two.
I have nothing to offer for the WNBA though, don't follow the league.
Section 101
All-Star
Yes they make money (At least pre covid). Yes some teams like the Warriors and Lakers go way into the Lux tax, but most teams make a profit and most of those tax teams, ie Lakers make enough to cover the tax.
KingsFanSince85
All-Star
Some make money. About half, according to a 2017 report. It may vary year-by-year, but it's not uncommon for numerous franchises to lose money.
That's one of the reasons revenue sharing exists.
And, again, the WNBA has been losing money since it's inception. But the NBA can afford that loss. That's why the league is still around.
Same goes for franchises that often lose money. Their owners can afford the loss.
The Magoofs were cash strapped owners that could not. Time will tell whether Vivek can continue to afford the losses.
jcassio
Starter
Correction: "If they were making enough money it wouldn't have been shutdown."
A lot of businesses make money, but still aren't making enough to justify the investment, the cash flow, the risk, etc.
Other businesses aren't expected to make money until year 4, 6, 8 or whatever. We all know that the Maloofs needed cash. That doesn't mean the Monarchs weren't making money, or weren't on a track to make money. My point is not to argue that they were profitable, but to suggest that we don't really know.