- May 23, 2016
- 164
- 147
Yes, and, again, you’re missing my point.
The entire concept of revenue sharing ALLOWS revenue to go to teams with a bad product (I.e. Hornets, Kings, etc. etc.) because other teams put out a good product (I.e. Lakers, Celtics, etc. etc.). If the top teams were not consistently putting out a good product that was anchored by marketable superstars, the revenue sharing wouldn’t matter because far fewer people would watch.
So the steps that the NBA takes are:
1.) Put out a quality product that people will pay good money to see live or tune into.
2.) Market said product to ensure people engage in the aforementioned step.
And because you want to make this a gender/sexism issue instead of a purely sports one, women’s football/soccer seems to be better focused on doing just this. This was from this past June:
Idk what you're trying to prove here. What specifically about the product needs improving?
Pulling up stats about other leagues is moot. That was literally a one time event, which has a significant impact on viewership.
Since you want to use the soccer reference, why is the champions league final the most watched game of the year? Cuz it only happens once! There is no second leg. But that doesn't really matter.
Let's entertain your theory a little more - what is the the marketing strategy of the leagues you mentioned? How does it differ from WNBA? Are they targeting the same demographics? What was the main group watching NWSL vs WNBA?