In the world of professional basketball, the discrepancy in wages between NBA and WNBA players has long been a topic of debate and contention. Recently, the case of Caitlin Clark, the standout player in women's college basketball and the no. 1 pick in the WNBA draft, has brought this issue to the forefront once again.

Despite Clark's undeniable talent and the immense viewership she attracted during the March Madness final game, where she brought in a record-breaking 18 million+ viewers, her salary pales in comparison to that of her male counterparts in the NBA. This begs the question: why do the figures not reflect the impact and popularity of women's basketball?

One argument often put forth is the disparity in revenue between the NBA and WNBA. While it's true that the NBA generates billions in revenue compared to the WNBA, it's essential to delve deeper into this argument. Yes, the NBA boasts higher revenue, but it's also worth noting that there are NBA teams operating at a loss, supported by revenue sharing. For example, last year, the Cleveland Cavaliers lost money on an operating basis and declined by about 4% in value to $1.28 billion, according to Forbes. 

Another important component of the NBA's finances is its revenue-sharing system. Like other major sports leagues, the NBA shares non-basketball related revenue between teams in order to address inequalities across different markets around the country. All teams pool their eligible revenue together to redistribute it from teams with higher revenues to those with lower. Each team then receives revenue equal to the salary cap for that year. In 2017, 14 teams were reported to be operating at a loss and were propped up by the revenue sharing. 

TV revenue is also crucial to the NBA's financial success. Players like Caitlin Clark, who will attract new viewership, particularly in markets where the NBA has been struggling (especially with younger demographic), are invaluable. If these players can bring in new fans and increase television ratings, it's clear that investing in women's basketball is not only the right thing to do morally but also financially beneficial for the league.

If the NBA can invest in some of the teams that operate losses and prioritize TV revenue, why not invest in the WNBA, which has shown potential for growth and increased viewership?

Historically, the NBA has enjoyed significant investment and support, whereas the WNBA has not received the same level of attention. The WNBA, established in 1996, is relatively young compared to the NBA, which has been around since the 1940s. This discrepancy in tenure has contributed to the disparity in resources and opportunities between the two leagues.

However, the narrative that the WNBA doesn't make money is misleading. Rather, it hasn't been given the same level of investment and resources as the NBA. With proper investment and promotion, women's basketball has the potential to thrive, as evidenced by the growing excitement and viewership surrounding players like Caitlin Clark.

So, why isn't the NBA investing more in the WNBA? It's a question that requires introspection from league officials and fans alike. Women's basketball is not just a game; it's an investment in equality and opportunity. By supporting the WNBA, the NBA can showcase its commitment to gender equality and pave the way for future generations of female athletes.

If you're displeased with the wage disparity faced by players like Caitlin Clark, there are actions you can take. Buy a jersey, purchase a league pass, and show the NBA that the WNBA is worth investing in. Every dollar spent on women's basketball is a vote of confidence in its future and a step towards closing the wage gap.

Addressing the wage disparity in professional basketball requires a concerted effort from all stakeholders. By acknowledging the value and potential of the WNBA, we can work towards a more equitable future for athletes of all genders. It's time to level the playing field and ensure that talent and hard work are rewarded, regardless of gender.